Celina, thanks for this--I've felt like what went down with this interview has been long mischaracterized, or misunderstood, so I'm glad this is out there.

I just want to add something--when Nubian asked us to take the interview down, I told her that it was up to Celina--as it was her post. When Celina told me she thought for reasons of journalistic integrity that the interview should stay up, I stood by her decision. I continue to stand by that decision--though I'm, of course, truly sorry that Nubian feels she was "publicly humiliated." Thanks again to Celina for the clarification.

Huh. I'm sorry, Celina. I have wondered often why feministing gets characterized so easily as a white blog when half of the editors are not white. It sounds as if you did all you could once you realized what was going down, and I'm really sorry that Nubian seems to be presuming bad faith on your part.

Argh. I hate to see people I respect schisming like this.

*sighs*

It's things like this is the reason why there is a divide in the feminist community between women of color and white feminists. As a woman of color and feminist, I do see that there are efforts on Feministing's part to present issues from the perspective of women of color and the issues that specifically affect us.(though of course, I think more could be done.)

I can only hope that Nubian understands that this was an misunderstanding and the Feministing's intentions were good.

it's pretty hard to understand this situation, with all the potentially racist comments deleted from her interview. as it is, it looks like nubian's wildly over-reacting. that probably isn't really fair to her, but her demand that you take it all down isn't really fair, either.

if only we were all expert ethicists at everything all the time, then we'd all know what to do, and no one would ever feel silly or wrong.

Thank you for addressing the issue of the interview with Nubian. I went back and read it, and the comments, today (embarrassingly, not having done so before, but having caught up on the whole situation recently.) I *strongly* encourage everyone to do the same, if they haven't already.

I love this site. I definitely don't agree with the recent generalizations elsewhere about its content or writers ignoring poc and intersectionality, or not tolerating "non-party-line" viewpoints.

I WILL SAY - and here I respectfully disagree, Jami - that that comment thread on that interview makes me nauseous (and that's *with* the ones deemed most offensive having been deleted, so I can only imagine). And it's a nausea I feel I should regularly have to take a big helping of. And it makes me even more nauseous that some of the *tamer* comments still say things like, *what's so offensive about this thread? I don't get it*, which smacks of unexamined privilege, at the very least. Although shout out to prairielily and many others who should be commended for lending their voices to that thread.

The whole thing reiterates for me, IMO, the need to have more of a dialogue here re: comment moderation, which I know you have already committed to do.

So, bottom line, my love for this site and my nausea / disgust at how Nubian and BlackAmazon (and others) were spoken to in the comments are co-existing right now. I can't really say it any better than that.

And I won't name names for fear of summoning the beast, but it's worth pointing out that a certain commentor (figuring prominently in the interview thread) infamous for his resistance to critical analysis, unexamined privilege, and inability to listen to / hear women or poc, is now being tolerated and engaged with (not moderated!) on sites that are being critical of Feministing for, um, not moderating commentors who are resistant to critical analysis, exhibit unexamined privilege, and refuse to listen to / hear women and poc! Sorry, that's just not going to fly, unless there's something I'm really missing there....??

They are coexisting for all of us.

I appreciate you not naming names, Charity, but all of the people who were so shitty to Nubian know who they are and they should be ashamed. Whenever anything to do with race is posted on this site, they throw their weight around and bully everyone and completley derail the thread. You'll notice that they do this more when the author of the post is a woman of color.

I think that, at this point, Nubian has overreacted, and I think you've taken the proper corrective measures, Celina, but I hope this most recent dust-up dies quickly.

Whilst it saddens and angers me to realize that so many people harbour racist and hateful opinions, I have to wonder if it's worse not to know? The cloak of the internet allows people to air their vile sentiments freely, which many of them probably wouldn't do openly in their lives and I think it's important for white people who aren't racist to realize how much of that is hidden in society and how much ill will and hatred really is out there and the day to day struggles that result because of it.

You are right Jenny Dreadful. I left out the name not because said person doesn't deserve to be shamed, but because if still reading this blog, said person (being chronically narcissistic / egocentric) may feel compelled to respond and *defend themselves* or just stir up shit if they see their own name. And none of us should be subjected to that.

I grew up in a neighborhood where I was frequently the only white girl in my class, and maybe it's because of that I find it so heartbreaking to hear about these kinds of divisions. I hate to think that in the years since I last saw the girls I grew up with that we could be so far seperated by something as stupid as skin color. I hate that our society still operates this way, and I constantly examine my opinions on social issues to make sure I'm not thinking too ethnocentrically. I just keep thinking that as long as women divide themselves, that we can't advance against an opposition that is more or less united. The sexism I face as a middle class white college aged female is far different from the sexism faced by an older women of color from different circumstances, but it's the same phenomena at it's heart. If we don't work together to change the basic attitudes that contribute to sexism across all cultures, I wonder how much difference will be made.

charity, good call on the Nameless Condescender.

but surely condescension isn't what prompted nubian to quit. it's the deleted stuff, right?

i don't want to see the deleted stuff. but at the same time, it really confuses the issue when people are saying "racism" and all i'm seeing in the first twenty or so comments i read is obnoxious condescension by one commenter who isn't even a lady.

Dear Feministing,
Please remove the internet. It's filled with hateful speech and it offends me.
Best.
Jane

I have to say that I find it upsetting that folks are saying nubian "overreacted." Do you know how loaded a word that can be? If nubian felt humiliated, that's valid. Just because you don't agree doesn't change that. Really inappropriate, and sadly, I think, shows that some of the criticism of commenters here is valid. Come on folks. You can support Celina and the rest of us here at Feministing without invalidadting another woman's feelings.

Thank you, Jen.

I second what Jen said. Great comment.

I'm definitely with Jen, as well. Thanks, Jen.

Celina, do you mind if I ask some questions? I'm seeing two *really* different versions of events here. I'm confused and I don't want to jump in and point fingers, I just need clarification.

You are saying you sent her three emails explaining your decision not to take the article down, which she didn't answer. Did she ever meantion even getting them? Did you ever tell her that only Jessica could remove the article? Did Jessica ever tell her that only you could?

Because it sounds like you are saying that she later told you that she understood your decision to leave the article up, and you laughed about it later.

She is saying she felt humiliated as a woman of color. And you had no idea she felt this way until today?

I'm just having such a hard time with this. It's almost like you two are describing two very different situations. Can you think of any reason why that would be?

Now that's what I'm talking about! Thank you Jen for that statement (and all Feministing editors for making their presence known in the comments).

I do see *way* more than obnoxious condescension in those comments, Jami. I think that's too generous a nickname for that particular commentor, who obtusely denies people's experience and redefines it for them based on published statistics. That's essentially erasing their personhood. And that's just one of the offenders. I'm not specifically approaching the issue as "why did Nubian quit blogging," because I don't know enough about the rest of the story or her life...I'm thinking about how she (and BlackAmazon and the others who did support her) felt over the course of those two days (or what looked like two days, from the comment dates). That's where I was coming from.

Thanks Jen for your comment.

To clarify, I did mention to Nubian initially that I had to check in with Jessica. Looking back, it was either over the phone or over email. I didn't know the protocol up until that point. When I did, Jessica said it was up to me. I then proceeded to discuss my concerns with Nubian about taking the interview down. I believe that I tried calling her as well as emailing her, but I can't be exactly sure at this point. I do remember when I was emailing her that I had hoped she would get my emails because I could see that she was online commenting on Feministing.

I knew that Nubian was upset about the comments. Nubian's frustrations were very clear to me, as well as they were expressed in the comments she posted. As a woman of color and journalist, I was torn about the situation. I expressed my concerns and thoughts to Nubian multiple times. I decided to leave the interview up to preserve Nubian's truth, to not censor her voice, and to preserve my role as a journalist.

We then later talked about the interview over the phone when she later collaborated with me on a feature I was doing for Colorlines. I hope this makes things clearer.

I suggest reading Nubian's response to the question SarahS asked, too.

I agree with Charity about the content of the comments.

"I posted the interview on a blog that is part of the uncensored blogosphere."

Celina, first of all, the blogosphere is censored--journalism in general is self-censored in all kinds of ways. Papers retract articles, and blogs take down posts, all the time.

Second, even if the internet were one big uncensored place, I wouldn't find this a compelling reason to leave the interview up, given the pain it has caused and the division it continues to create in the online feminist community. At this point it appears to me (not a committed reader of Feministing or, formerly, of Nubian's blog) that the interview is left up to make a point, and that's really too bad.

Callie--

I can totally see what you are saying. But perhaps explain what point you think we were trying to make?

Charity wrote:

"And I won't name names for fear of summoning the beast, but it's worth pointing out that a certain commentor (figuring prominently in the interview thread) infamous for his resistance to critical analysis, unexamined privilege, and inability to listen to / hear women or poc, is now being tolerated and engaged with (not moderated!) on sites that are being critical of Feministing for, um, not moderating commentors who are resistant to critical analysis, exhibit unexamined privilege, and refuse to listen to / hear women and poc! Sorry, that's just not going to fly, unless there's something I'm really missing there....??"

I have seen this person on one WOC blog in this current dust-up and I hardly think he was given a "hearty welcome." He posted because he had been lumped in with some WOC bloggers. But whatever his reasons, I don't think he was invited or that he'll be putting in many more appearances there. Hope that answers your confusion.

And to Celina, I really think you should take a look at nubian's reply to SarahS on Blac(k)ademic.

Samhita, the argument that's been given for leaving the interview up--that it has to do with journalistic integrity--doesn't hold up well, especially when you've deleted some of the comments but not others, and you have repeated requests from the subject of the interview to take the thing down.

Further, I doubt you've left it up to deliberately hurt anyone.

So the other option seems to be that you're leaving the interview there to let it be known that Feministing won't be told what to do. It doesn't seem a worthwhile point to make, in my opinion. The only people to whom it makes a big difference whether you take it down are the people who've been hurt by this spat, so if you (meaning, all of Feministing) feel confident in your position as an influential feminist blog, why not just take the thing down?

Andrew32, the commentor *I* was referring to in my comment has not just made "one comment" where I saw him (on a blog being critical of feministing), and *his* (the offender's) blog is LINKED TO in their blogroll. It's possible we're talking about different people, here, but I wanted to clarify that's what I was referring to. Maybe he's had some kind of epiphany and changed his ways, I don't know...but it struck me as *ironic*.

But thanks, maybe I did misunderstand the whole situation (although the blogroll thing I really don't get).

And sorry, I just looked back and saw you did not actually use the phrase "one comment," but said "one...blog".

And I really need to stop using *these* so much because it really looks *obnoxious*. ******!!!

Hi, folks. I'm gone from Feministing for good; you know how to reach me. I wish you all the best.

Cheers,

TH

TH--don't let the smog get you down. Take a break, but come back soon.

Charity,
I think we are speaking about different sites. I remember seeing his comment on the site I'm talking about and doing a double take because I remembered him from the nubian thread and another disgusting thread sometimes after that on another blog. I don't know about the blogroll linkage as I don't know the name of his blog. I'll look further into it.

Andrew, you are right, we are talking about different sites but likely about the same person. I figured out that the blog I am speaking of is not a WoC blog (which I never said, just to be clear) but is a blog that has been critical of feministing in this situation. I found that piece a little hard to take when someone *I* perceive as being among the aggressors in the Nubian-interview-comments is linked in the blogroll.

I'm sorry that I continue to be so cryptic. It is already disingenuous of me not to say something directly at the actual blog in question (who knows, there could be some simple explanation..?), so I thought I'd at least have the decency not to start throwing names around. I am really a peripheral-to-the-billionth-degree voice in this conversation.

I've been reading most of the WoC blogs (lurking, learning) when I can and haven't seen him there...I'll keep looking too.

meant to say "most of the WoC blogs referenced recently in this situation"

Charity,
Gotcha' ;)

Samhita, the argument that's been given for leaving the interview up--that it has to do with journalistic integrity--doesn't hold up well, especially when you've deleted some of the comments but not others, and you have repeated requests from the subject of the interview to take the thing down.

Further, I doubt you've left it up to deliberately hurt anyone.

So the other option seems to be that you're leaving the interview there to let it be known that Feministing won't be told what to do.
----

No, perhaps they are leaving it up there for exactly the reasons they said. Deleting offensive comments and deleting/erasing an entire interview (essentially allowing racist comments and/or trolls to erase that person's speech) are two entirely different things.

Andrew (if you're still there!) I did find the comment I think you were referring to by the offender...on Donna's blog(was that the one)? If so, yes I do see it was not received well (if even acknowledged)...meanwhile, though, he continues to pontificate, unfettered, about the feministing situation (and about WoC issues!!) on the blog I was referencing. I second the motion to dismantle the Internet and start over.

Charity (if ur still there :P ),
That was where exactly! I have "seen" him "pontificating) 2 other places also. And lol on that motion. I third it.

While I am certain this wasn’t the intention – I pretty strongly feel that Nubian’s wishes were entirely disregarded here…which is exactly the problem. This was left up for someone else’s journalistic integrity and to help educate the masses. To those ends the woman herself was used almost as a tool to achieve things that had nothing to do with her desires or feelings.

Yes, it is important to have a dialogue about race but we should never force someone to become the subject of that discussion if they aren’t willing. It seems to me that she made it very clear from the beginning how she felt and that she no longer wanted to be the “we need to foster more dialogue� lightening rod. I agree with Jen that we should never be the one to turn around and say “your humiliation doesn’t matter, it is serving a more important purpose.�

Except that once you agree to give an interview and have it published, I don't think you get to determine what the venue does after that. It's at least as much the interviewer's work as the interview subject's. So I don't think it was particularly horrible to leave the interview up for the sake of Celina's journalistic integrity.

So EG the question to me is, which is more important - "Celina's journalistic integrity" or a woman's feelings of humiliation? I can see both sides but I also know where my choice would fall.

I'm not sure where mine would. What I might have done is deleted all the comments.

Why are you putting quotation marks around "Celina's journalistic integrity"? Professional standards and ethics do matter a lot to the people who practice those professions, and they often have important principles at their base. If Celina felt that her professional integrity was at stake, I don't consider that a small thing.

I didn't mean to imply that her sense of journalistic integrity doesn't matter. I really can see both sides...lawyers, journalists, etc all have to confront ethical issues. Just as I could not be a defense lawyer defending a rapist based on a principle, I would not deem my professional ethics more important than someone saying they are humiliated by something I do. Its a fine and difficult line to walk and I can respect both sides.